Reading Parshat Naso, one wonders how the Princes of each tribe felt when they realized they each brought the same gift. Imagine a bridal shower, they lovely young couple gets a lovely crystal vase. Very pretty. The 2nd gift, the same vase, the 3rd, the 4th, the tenth, maybe by now they are not so excited.
In life, we have a lot of repetitive patterns of how we dress, of work responsibility, of chores. When I buy clothes for the kids, I can get blue for Daniel, or pink for the girls; it used to be that my own shirt options were basically white and light blue. It can be hard to find ways to express ourselves.
In Payless last week, Hannah found a pair of shoes that were labelled “You be you.” For $7, you can buy authenticity, you can actually buy being yourself!
Obviously, authenticity is much deeper. You can’t rely on rainbow shoes for authenticity. The fact that they can sell “being you” speaks to our deep, unmet need for self-expression. I can’t pull of wearing rainbow shoes. Am I really able to express my deepest self?
I want to share a Talmudic sugiya that speaks to a Jewish view of authenticity. The sugiya is speaking specifically about prayer, but I invite you to read it as a statement about authenticity in general:
Mishnah Berachot 4:4
Rabbi Eliezer said: He who makes his prayer fixed (keva), his prayer is not supplication.
Gemara: Brachot 29b
What is the meaning of “fixed”?
R. Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of R. Oshaya: Anyone whose prayer is like a burden on him.
And the Rabbis say: Anyone who does not recite [his prayer] in a supplicatory manner.
Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say: [This refers to] anyone who is unable to innovate something [in his prayer].
R. Zeira said: I am able to innovate something in [my prayer], but I am afraid to do so lest I become confused.
Abaya bar Avin and R. Chanina bar Avin both say: Anyone who does not pray during the redness of the sun.
I invite us to think about this as a general statement of authenticity. I see in this text 4 approaches:
1. Attitude: Yes, I do the same thing, but it’s about bringing an emotionally engaged attitude
2. Interpretation: I can conform but have an individualized mindset—what kavannah do I bring to a repetitive task?
3. addition: I have to find a way to express myself—add to what is given me
4. response: I have to live in response to outside—not just me expressing myself, but world making impression on me
Expression through interpretation,
For Yaakov and the rabbis, repetition is a fact of life. The question is, what attitude do we bring to bear? How do we interpret the task?
In our parsha, the chiefs of each tribe bring the same gift. The midrash, however, sees each of them having different symbolism. For Issachar, for example, the gifts represented Torah study, something with which Issachar dedicated themselves to. My favorite interpretation in that midrash is for Dan, the tribe which the nazirite Sampson belonged to: the silver bowl represents the shaved head of the nazirite.
When we talk about kavannah in prayer, we are adding through interpretation: yes, I say “you are holy,” but how can I be holy like God today?
I heard about a janitor in a hospital who loved his job. I would have a hard time: spend 20 minutes cleaning a roomn, then go to another dirty room. What is transformed? The place is the same at the end of the day—there’s not much to show for my work. I would find the repetition depressing. This janitor, hgowever, had a positive attitude: she was helping people heal. How we see our situation can make it deeply meaningful
This approach sometimes doesn’t feel enough. My personal challenge is Wednesday’s song of the day: “Arise, god of retribution & judge the earth”-that’s kind of a scary thought. I think our world needs less retribution, more healing. Also, we read “when will you simpletons listen”-not a phrase I use much. I davven it in Hebrew & ignore the English. That’s not a very authentic solution.
Sometimes interpretation doesn’t get you quite far enough
Expression
According to Ravvah & Yosef, we have to add content. Authentic expression is a deep need. The Talmud says “the seal of god is truth,” something we echo by saying at the end of the Shema “adonay eloheychem emet,” The Lord your God is truth.—if we aren’t speaking the truth, we are not saying anything holy
I once went on pilgrimage over Rosh Hashanah to Rebbe Nahman’s grave, in Uman, near Kiev. There were tens of thousands of Jews, like us, not Hassidim, Israelies, Americans and others, davenning, celebrating Rosh Hashanah. Most Hassidic sects they all dress the same, but this was a beautiful variety of Jews. I attended a class where a leader of the movement told us that they do not encourage 1 form of dress, because then it wouldn’t be lev basar, a heart of flesh (lev basar has the same letters as Breslav, Rebbe Nahman’s birthplace). Here was the annual gathering of an international Hassidic movement saying that in principle, we should all express ourselves differently.
About 9 years ago, Tanya and I were visited by Rabbi Jack Gabriel, who taught us a unique way of doing the blessing before the meal. We hold hands, and say what we are grateful for. When Aliza was 3, she would always say “Thank you for the pool, thank you playground;” she eventually matured to superman. It was real—that’s what she was grateful to God for, so it was holy.
3rd opinion:
The last approach in the sugiya is that authenticity is not just about expressing myself. It’s sbout noticing what’s going on around me, internalizing it, allowing it to impact me, and responding. I could say “it’s 8:30, time to davven.” Or I could say, “wow, look at the sun rise, Blessed are you God who makes lights!” On this approach, we should focus less on self-expression, and more on letting the world make an impression on us. We need to observe the world around us, the people around us, celebrate great things, and respond to the needs we see
You can buy “you be you” rainbow shoes on sale for $7 at payless). But, obviously, you can’t buy real authenticity. Living truly authrntic lives means connecting to our hearts, trusting that bthere is some truth and value to what is there, and also letting our hearts be impacted by the world around us.
Showing posts with label Talmud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Talmud. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Yitro 5779: Shame and Murder
We read this Shabbat about the 10 commandments. We tend to think these are ingrained in the fabric of our society—just look at people trying to plaster them on the sides of courthouses—we think they are the basis for Western morality. But the fact is, many of them are flouted.
The first commandment, which Rambam says is to know there is a God: many people nowadays say they are atheists. The truth is, the God they don’t believe in, is a God I don’t believe in and in fact the overwhelming history of Jewish thought rejects. There is no invisible guy way up high in an invisible castle. Believing in God means believing in goodness, in right, that there is something toward which I personally strive that is greater than myself, and toward which we try to move the world.
Sadly, murder seems to be becoming more common—most recently, the bank shooting up the road in Sebring, where a gunman pointlessly murdered 5 victims on cold blood. I do not believe our society is adequately teaching the sanctity of life.
The Talmud says that there is more than one way to murder somebody. According to the Talmud, public shaming—halbanat panim—is a form of murder. Why is shaming a type of murder? On a literal level, halbanat panim means to make one’s face white—if I shame you and make your face pale, I have shed the blood from your face.
On a more figurative level, we are social animals. My livelihood, my experience in society, depends on what others think of me. Destroying someone’s reputation is destroying the life they built
I have been thinking this week about the video of the student from Covington, who smirked at older native American drumming. A picture of this was put on twitter with a very judgmental caption claiming the student was harassing the native American. The tweet went viral, was even re-tweeted by the congresswoman from Minnesota. This led to threats of expulsion from the school, and even a death threat against student.
It turns out the student was not harassing anybody. The elderly Native American had approached their protest, and was drumming in their faces. They just stood their ground. Should they have smirked and been silly? No, they were disrespectful, but they did not deserve to be dragged over the coals in front of millions of people.
We cannot let ourselves be recruited by the forces of judgment, into believing shameful things about others. The Jewish tradition teaches us to give the benefit of the doubt, and this will take the ammunition away from the forces of judging and embarrassing. Pictures can always be interpreted multiple ways. Giving the benefit of the doubt means to question the caption, and assume the best—they were kids, thought it was funny, and were singing along. Nothing about the video suggested anything more.
We live in a society where people are judged & shamed, and lives & livelihoods are ruined. To not kill, is to not participate in killing, in ruining another’s life, by believing in the positive, giving the benefit of the doubt, and helping build, create life rather than destroy
The first commandment, which Rambam says is to know there is a God: many people nowadays say they are atheists. The truth is, the God they don’t believe in, is a God I don’t believe in and in fact the overwhelming history of Jewish thought rejects. There is no invisible guy way up high in an invisible castle. Believing in God means believing in goodness, in right, that there is something toward which I personally strive that is greater than myself, and toward which we try to move the world.
Sadly, murder seems to be becoming more common—most recently, the bank shooting up the road in Sebring, where a gunman pointlessly murdered 5 victims on cold blood. I do not believe our society is adequately teaching the sanctity of life.
The Talmud says that there is more than one way to murder somebody. According to the Talmud, public shaming—halbanat panim—is a form of murder. Why is shaming a type of murder? On a literal level, halbanat panim means to make one’s face white—if I shame you and make your face pale, I have shed the blood from your face.
On a more figurative level, we are social animals. My livelihood, my experience in society, depends on what others think of me. Destroying someone’s reputation is destroying the life they built
I have been thinking this week about the video of the student from Covington, who smirked at older native American drumming. A picture of this was put on twitter with a very judgmental caption claiming the student was harassing the native American. The tweet went viral, was even re-tweeted by the congresswoman from Minnesota. This led to threats of expulsion from the school, and even a death threat against student.
It turns out the student was not harassing anybody. The elderly Native American had approached their protest, and was drumming in their faces. They just stood their ground. Should they have smirked and been silly? No, they were disrespectful, but they did not deserve to be dragged over the coals in front of millions of people.
We cannot let ourselves be recruited by the forces of judgment, into believing shameful things about others. The Jewish tradition teaches us to give the benefit of the doubt, and this will take the ammunition away from the forces of judging and embarrassing. Pictures can always be interpreted multiple ways. Giving the benefit of the doubt means to question the caption, and assume the best—they were kids, thought it was funny, and were singing along. Nothing about the video suggested anything more.
We live in a society where people are judged & shamed, and lives & livelihoods are ruined. To not kill, is to not participate in killing, in ruining another’s life, by believing in the positive, giving the benefit of the doubt, and helping build, create life rather than destroy
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Vayashev 5779 Sermon: Hanukkah and Bullying
In our prayers celebrating Hanukkah, we say that “you delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak.” Hanukkah celebrates the victory of faith over might. Might doesn’t make right; in the long run, we win through faith, not by might.
This is true on a historical level-look at the collapse of Russian communism. It did not happen because of the cold war, because we built larger weapons. It happened because of economic pressures, and because democracy and freedom are right. At times, we do backslide, but ultimately “the arc of history tends toward justice.”
On an interpersonal level, too, we “win” not by vanquishing our foe, not by being more powerful, but by interacting with compassion and openness, and not always getting our way. There are people who always need to get their way, and will use every tool at their disposal to get it. They may force their will, but the other person is not happy, and ultimately it is a pyrrhic victory: they have won the battle but lost the war. By getting their way through force, they have already sown the seeds of their own undoing.
Bullying is very real. I believe the word is so overused now that kids don’t know what it means. Saying something mean online is not cyberbullying. Bullies are people who have power and enjoy using it. When I was a child, I was beaten up on the walk home by a group of children, for no reason other than to gratify their desire to be powerful.
The Greeks were bullies. They had a lot of power: they used elephants to build was essentially a tank, unstoppable by foot soldiers. They had massive phalanxes, which were clouds of lances killing anything in their way.
The Antiochus approach to relationships, which is basically bullying, is to try to use whatever tool I can to get my way. It is a game of mercy, bending the other person’s hand backward painfully until they give in. I can use threats, volume (yelling), insults. There’s no dynamic interchange of ideas, and ultimately, it kills the relationship: if the other person says yes, they only do so out of fear, but their heart wants to go the other way. We all do this at times; sometimes I do it with my own children. It is a challenge to do it differently.
American culture is built on this kind of relationship. As a father of small children, I watch a lot of Disney. Think about Sleeping Beauty: the prince defeats the evil witch by force. So many movies have the following dialogue, or some version:
“Ha ha ha”
“Oh no you don’t”
“I’ll get you next time”
We still teach our children that force solves problems; really, it only causes more problems.
And we see these problems in our synagogue culture. So often, somebody wants something, and uses all sorts of power plays to try to get it. Imagine someone who wants to paint the shul pink: It’s Florida, so pink is appropriate, and it would make us stick out. They may yell at volunteers and staff, insult them, badmouth them, threaten to resign. These kinds of interactions, sadly, happen all the time. They are really forms of bullying. We need to find a different way.
The Jewish approach is very different. At the end of the Amida, we read a prayer that says “may my soul be as dust to all, and may I be silent to those who curse me.” Can I be non-reactive, absorb insults without needing to strike back? We are taught to be flexible, and that it is good to compromise even if we are right, for the sake of peace.
What is a victory of faith?
Avoiding anger: the Talmud says our words should all be calm
Avoiding lashon hara: not badmouthing the person we are speaking with
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the person we are speaking with: they have the best intentions, and have a different experience than myself
Being flexible—The Talmud says we should bend like a reed, and not be stiff like a cedar. It is okay not to get my way 100%, even if I still know im right
Finding solutions cooperatively, which means listening to the person opposite me
The real victory is not winning every conflict. It is not being sure we beat the Greeks, or the Romans, or the neo-Nazis. It is making sure we retain our integrity, that we stand for a different way of being in the world. The victory happens when we model and teach that way of being to the world, increasing the radiance of holy light in the world
In our prayers celebrating Hanukkah, we say that “you delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak.” Hanukkah celebrates the victory of faith over might. Might doesn’t make right; in the long run, we win through faith, not by might.
This is true on a historical level-look at the collapse of Russian communism. It did not happen because of the cold war, because we built larger weapons. It happened because of economic pressures, and because democracy and freedom are right. At times, we do backslide, but ultimately “the arc of history tends toward justice.”
On an interpersonal level, too, we “win” not by vanquishing our foe, not by being more powerful, but by interacting with compassion and openness, and not always getting our way. There are people who always need to get their way, and will use every tool at their disposal to get it. They may force their will, but the other person is not happy, and ultimately it is a pyrrhic victory: they have won the battle but lost the war. By getting their way through force, they have already sown the seeds of their own undoing.
Bullying is very real. I believe the word is so overused now that kids don’t know what it means. Saying something mean online is not cyberbullying. Bullies are people who have power and enjoy using it. When I was a child, I was beaten up on the walk home by a group of children, for no reason other than to gratify their desire to be powerful.
The Greeks were bullies. They had a lot of power: they used elephants to build was essentially a tank, unstoppable by foot soldiers. They had massive phalanxes, which were clouds of lances killing anything in their way.
The Antiochus approach to relationships, which is basically bullying, is to try to use whatever tool I can to get my way. It is a game of mercy, bending the other person’s hand backward painfully until they give in. I can use threats, volume (yelling), insults. There’s no dynamic interchange of ideas, and ultimately, it kills the relationship: if the other person says yes, they only do so out of fear, but their heart wants to go the other way. We all do this at times; sometimes I do it with my own children. It is a challenge to do it differently.
American culture is built on this kind of relationship. As a father of small children, I watch a lot of Disney. Think about Sleeping Beauty: the prince defeats the evil witch by force. So many movies have the following dialogue, or some version:
“Ha ha ha”
“Oh no you don’t”
“I’ll get you next time”
We still teach our children that force solves problems; really, it only causes more problems.
And we see these problems in our synagogue culture. So often, somebody wants something, and uses all sorts of power plays to try to get it. Imagine someone who wants to paint the shul pink: It’s Florida, so pink is appropriate, and it would make us stick out. They may yell at volunteers and staff, insult them, badmouth them, threaten to resign. These kinds of interactions, sadly, happen all the time. They are really forms of bullying. We need to find a different way.
The Jewish approach is very different. At the end of the Amida, we read a prayer that says “may my soul be as dust to all, and may I be silent to those who curse me.” Can I be non-reactive, absorb insults without needing to strike back? We are taught to be flexible, and that it is good to compromise even if we are right, for the sake of peace.
What is a victory of faith?
Avoiding anger: the Talmud says our words should all be calm
Avoiding lashon hara: not badmouthing the person we are speaking with
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the person we are speaking with: they have the best intentions, and have a different experience than myself
Being flexible—The Talmud says we should bend like a reed, and not be stiff like a cedar. It is okay not to get my way 100%, even if I still know im right
Finding solutions cooperatively, which means listening to the person opposite me
The real victory is not winning every conflict. It is not being sure we beat the Greeks, or the Romans, or the neo-Nazis. It is making sure we retain our integrity, that we stand for a different way of being in the world. The victory happens when we model and teach that way of being to the world, increasing the radiance of holy light in the world
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Passover: Speaking our way out of shame
According to a recent article in the Atlantic, “the secret shame of middle class americans,” many more Americans are cash-stapped than we are accustomed to believe. For example, 47% of Americans can’t round up $400 for an emergency. Most can’t afford the accoutrements of middle class lifestyle: house, cars, health, vacation—which costs an average family $130,000, double the median family income. You’d never think—those who have these things talk about them, we hear about all sorts of family vacations, but those who don’t have don’t talk about it-it’s too shameful.
How many Americans are living in this kind of shame, unable to speak about the pain they experience?
The Haggadah instructs us to start the narrative with shame (gnut), and end with praise (shevah). The Talmud (Pes 116a) reports a debate about what shameful situation is meant. Rav says “shame” refers to idolatry, so he starts the Maggid narrative with terach’s idolatrous family. Shmuel, on the other hand, starts in Egypt with avadim hayyinu, “we were slaves in egypt.” What’s the difference?
Maybe for Rav, shame is when we do something truly bad, so he reaches back to idolatrous days. For Shmuel, on the other hand, shame has nothing to do with whether it is our fault; it is being in an embarrassingly low situation
What’s the shame in that? Why do we feel bad about ourselves when we are down & out? Why do people feel ashamed of not having money, live in silence?
Maybe the shame is really like Rav: fear that others will see it as a moral failure. The OED defines shame as “a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.” Jeremy Seabrook, in the Guardian, recently argued that we used to blame poverty on God, but now we blame it on the people.
Or perhaps Shmuel feels that even if it’s not my fault, I still experience it as shameful. I know others will look down on me. Also, I can’t see myself as being needy, weak, etc. None of us wants to see ourselves as poor, vulnerable, down and out. We certainly don’t want others to see us that way. So we suffer in silence.
Just like when we were slaves in egypt, We are shamed into silence. Shame is a contemporary Mitzrayim
What truths do we have that we are not speaking?
What truths are those around us suffering but too ashamed to speak up?
There is a classic midrash on the word “pesah,” that interprets it as peh sah, a mouth telling. On a simple level, the ‘mouth telling’ is reading the Haggadah, telling the story of the Exodus. On a deeper level, however, the mouth is gaining the ability to speak through the process of the exodus. Gaining the ability to speak is itself yetziat mitzrayim, leaving egypt.
Now we get a little technical:
The Zohar distinguishes kol, inner truth that we need to speak, the voice of our heart, from dibbur, the words that actually leave our lips. If the universe is divine speech, self-expression, then kol is the voice of the divine heart, and dibbur is the actual expression of the divine into the physical universe.
Exile is a rupture between kol and dibbur. On an individual level, this means that my inner voice is not articulated into speech. On a divine level, this same rupture happens to God.
The Zohar says that the Jews were constricted like the embryo of a donkey in its mother’s womb. They could not move. Redemption started when they cried out: They cried out, and god heard their cry.
Really embryos do move, so not a great metaphor; maybe donkey embryos move less than human embryos, or maybe the point was that an embryo can’t talk. But the idea was that egypt is a constriction that prevents the dibbur, the articulation of deep truth—they were not not speaking their truth. Only when they cried out, in an unarticulated cry, did the redemption start
The invitation: speak our way out of our personal mitzrayim,
To speak our way out of shame
How many Americans are living in this kind of shame, unable to speak about the pain they experience?
The Haggadah instructs us to start the narrative with shame (gnut), and end with praise (shevah). The Talmud (Pes 116a) reports a debate about what shameful situation is meant. Rav says “shame” refers to idolatry, so he starts the Maggid narrative with terach’s idolatrous family. Shmuel, on the other hand, starts in Egypt with avadim hayyinu, “we were slaves in egypt.” What’s the difference?
Maybe for Rav, shame is when we do something truly bad, so he reaches back to idolatrous days. For Shmuel, on the other hand, shame has nothing to do with whether it is our fault; it is being in an embarrassingly low situation
What’s the shame in that? Why do we feel bad about ourselves when we are down & out? Why do people feel ashamed of not having money, live in silence?
Maybe the shame is really like Rav: fear that others will see it as a moral failure. The OED defines shame as “a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.” Jeremy Seabrook, in the Guardian, recently argued that we used to blame poverty on God, but now we blame it on the people.
Or perhaps Shmuel feels that even if it’s not my fault, I still experience it as shameful. I know others will look down on me. Also, I can’t see myself as being needy, weak, etc. None of us wants to see ourselves as poor, vulnerable, down and out. We certainly don’t want others to see us that way. So we suffer in silence.
Just like when we were slaves in egypt, We are shamed into silence. Shame is a contemporary Mitzrayim
What truths do we have that we are not speaking?
What truths are those around us suffering but too ashamed to speak up?
There is a classic midrash on the word “pesah,” that interprets it as peh sah, a mouth telling. On a simple level, the ‘mouth telling’ is reading the Haggadah, telling the story of the Exodus. On a deeper level, however, the mouth is gaining the ability to speak through the process of the exodus. Gaining the ability to speak is itself yetziat mitzrayim, leaving egypt.
Now we get a little technical:
The Zohar distinguishes kol, inner truth that we need to speak, the voice of our heart, from dibbur, the words that actually leave our lips. If the universe is divine speech, self-expression, then kol is the voice of the divine heart, and dibbur is the actual expression of the divine into the physical universe.
Exile is a rupture between kol and dibbur. On an individual level, this means that my inner voice is not articulated into speech. On a divine level, this same rupture happens to God.
The Zohar says that the Jews were constricted like the embryo of a donkey in its mother’s womb. They could not move. Redemption started when they cried out: They cried out, and god heard their cry.
Really embryos do move, so not a great metaphor; maybe donkey embryos move less than human embryos, or maybe the point was that an embryo can’t talk. But the idea was that egypt is a constriction that prevents the dibbur, the articulation of deep truth—they were not not speaking their truth. Only when they cried out, in an unarticulated cry, did the redemption start
The invitation: speak our way out of our personal mitzrayim,
To speak our way out of shame
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Bernie's boycott of AIPAC
I was deeply saddened and disappointed by Bernie Sanders not addressing the AIPAC convention. It was sad to me, for one, to see the only Jewish candidate skipping a major Jewish convention. It was also disappointing to me since, just by virtue of being the only Independent in Congress, Bernie is something of a hero to me. But I was also deeply saddened by what it suggests for the possibility of conversation around Israel, and conversation in general over difficult topics.
For me, this raises some central questions: What’s the best way to deal with someone if I disagree vehemently? What does boycotting accomplish, and what does it destroy?
It is easy to engage in a “conversation” if I have enough things to say that you will agree with; this was the direction Hillary and Trump both went. It’s much harder to have a meaningful conversation if I assume you disagree with me if I walk in assuming there’s a conflict. The belief that there’s a conflict itself creates conflict.
I can think of two important ways to keep converations both real and productive, both of which 9I think) have a basis in Jewish tradition.
1. find common ground
In the classic debate between Shammai and Hillel (over a person sitting in a sukkah, but the table is in their house), Hillel wins the argument, not because of their superior reasoning, but because they were humble. What’s the proof they were humble? They quoted Shammai first. I imagine: they tried to fully understand his position first, and were even happy to explain his reasoning to others. I imagine they were even open to his arguments, even if (as in this case) they ultimately disagreed.
What would this have looked like? If you ever are a candidate for president who feels AIPAC is too easy on Israel, what could you do? You could first meet privately with AIPAC leaders, try to understand their position, try to learn if there are any facts that you may not have considered. try to understand whether there really are substantive differences.
I am not convinced the difference is really so far—maybe a difference in emphasis. Everyone at AIPAC already believes in a “2-state solution”-that’s not really a question. Could Bernie agree that Palestinians need to renounce violence before negotiating boundaries? Probably—he did say so in his speech. Could AIPAC agree that once Palestinians renounce violence, we would talk about a freeze of settlements? Probably.
What often strikes me in these conversations is that there’s much less substantive disagreement than the rhetoric leads us to believe.
2. engage personally,
In the debate between Hillel and Shammai, which was inherited by their followers (Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai), there were differences in their understanding of marriage laws that could have split the community. But nevertheless, their kids married each other. They were still friends. They didn’t
let it result in a breakdown of their relationships.
By boycotting, the conversation is automatically shut down. Once I boycott, I announce, I disagree with you no matter what, and there’s no conversation.
I would like to think that if Bernie had taken his proposed speech to AIPACleaders, and asked what they thought, he might have toned down what he said. I would like to believe he would have backed down from criticizing alleged Israeli bombing of hospitals in Gaza, if he realized they were being used as weapons bases (which he said are legitimate targets). I would like to believe he would not have criticized the alleged economic blockade of Gaza to the same extent, if he was educated about the military nature of the blockade, the challenges of allowing economic borders to remain open while trying to prevent weapons from entering, and the material support Israel does allow through.
When we shut down conversations, we prevent ourselves from growing, from learning our own blindspots. It’s easy to stay locked in my position, to think I’m right and build barriers against the world. It’s harder to engage in a meaningful conversation, where I learn and grow, and where I run the risk of actually changing my opinion.
The Talmud says that Torah scrolls should be written with a reed (rather than something stiffer) because reeds are flexible. May we all be flexible like reeds, growing in wisdom and understanding from deep conversation with each other.
For me, this raises some central questions: What’s the best way to deal with someone if I disagree vehemently? What does boycotting accomplish, and what does it destroy?
It is easy to engage in a “conversation” if I have enough things to say that you will agree with; this was the direction Hillary and Trump both went. It’s much harder to have a meaningful conversation if I assume you disagree with me if I walk in assuming there’s a conflict. The belief that there’s a conflict itself creates conflict.
I can think of two important ways to keep converations both real and productive, both of which 9I think) have a basis in Jewish tradition.
1. find common ground
In the classic debate between Shammai and Hillel (over a person sitting in a sukkah, but the table is in their house), Hillel wins the argument, not because of their superior reasoning, but because they were humble. What’s the proof they were humble? They quoted Shammai first. I imagine: they tried to fully understand his position first, and were even happy to explain his reasoning to others. I imagine they were even open to his arguments, even if (as in this case) they ultimately disagreed.
What would this have looked like? If you ever are a candidate for president who feels AIPAC is too easy on Israel, what could you do? You could first meet privately with AIPAC leaders, try to understand their position, try to learn if there are any facts that you may not have considered. try to understand whether there really are substantive differences.
I am not convinced the difference is really so far—maybe a difference in emphasis. Everyone at AIPAC already believes in a “2-state solution”-that’s not really a question. Could Bernie agree that Palestinians need to renounce violence before negotiating boundaries? Probably—he did say so in his speech. Could AIPAC agree that once Palestinians renounce violence, we would talk about a freeze of settlements? Probably.
What often strikes me in these conversations is that there’s much less substantive disagreement than the rhetoric leads us to believe.
2. engage personally,
In the debate between Hillel and Shammai, which was inherited by their followers (Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai), there were differences in their understanding of marriage laws that could have split the community. But nevertheless, their kids married each other. They were still friends. They didn’t
let it result in a breakdown of their relationships.
By boycotting, the conversation is automatically shut down. Once I boycott, I announce, I disagree with you no matter what, and there’s no conversation.
I would like to think that if Bernie had taken his proposed speech to AIPACleaders, and asked what they thought, he might have toned down what he said. I would like to believe he would have backed down from criticizing alleged Israeli bombing of hospitals in Gaza, if he realized they were being used as weapons bases (which he said are legitimate targets). I would like to believe he would not have criticized the alleged economic blockade of Gaza to the same extent, if he was educated about the military nature of the blockade, the challenges of allowing economic borders to remain open while trying to prevent weapons from entering, and the material support Israel does allow through.
When we shut down conversations, we prevent ourselves from growing, from learning our own blindspots. It’s easy to stay locked in my position, to think I’m right and build barriers against the world. It’s harder to engage in a meaningful conversation, where I learn and grow, and where I run the risk of actually changing my opinion.
The Talmud says that Torah scrolls should be written with a reed (rather than something stiffer) because reeds are flexible. May we all be flexible like reeds, growing in wisdom and understanding from deep conversation with each other.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Jewish Civil Disobedience Part 2: the obligation to speak up
pete seeger was followed by FBI for over 30 yrs, letters opened, blacklisted & called in 1953 before house committee on un-American activities and cited for contempt of congress, didn’t know why
Why?
In July 1942, Seeger, 23, was drafted into the Army. He was training as an aviation mechanic at Keesler Field in Mississippi. in the fall of 1942, Seeger, wrote a letter of protest to the California chapter of the American Legion. It was to the point:
Dear Sirs -
I felt shocked, outraged, and disgusted to read that the California American Legion voted to 1) deport all Japanese after the war, citizen or not, 2) Bar all Japanese descendants from citizenship!!
We, who may have to give our lives in this great struggle—we're fighting precisely to free the world of such Hitlerism, such narrow jingoism.
If you deport Japanese, why not Germans, Italians, Rumanians, Hungarians, and Bulgarians?
If you bar from citizenship descendants of Japanese, why not descendants of English? After all, we once fought with them too.
America is great and strong as she is because we have so far been a haven to all oppressed.
I felt sick at heart to read of this matter.
Yours truly,
Pvt. Peter Seeger
I am writing also to the Los Angeles Times
"How did the American Legion respond? It forwarded Seeger's note to the FBI in San Francisco. And somehow this matter was brought to the attention of the Military Intelligence Service of the War Department. Within weeks, military intelligence was investigating Seeger—and soon updating the FBI on its effort. The official "reason for investigation," as numerous military reports forwarded to the FBI noted, was that "Subject wrote letter protesting and criticizing the California American Legion's resolution advocating deportation of all Japanese, citizens or not, after the war, and barring all Japanese descendants from citizenship.""
Banal, something many of us would have done
Irony: now we all see that the government acted in an un-American way
Perhaps there are times when we must speak up
Whoever can protest to his household [for committing a sin] but does not, is seized for [the sins of] his household. If he could protest to his fellow citizens, he is seized for the sins of his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for the sins of the whole world. Rab Papa observed, the members of the Resh Galuta's household are seized for the whole world. Even as Rabbi Hanina said, “Why is it written, ‘The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof” (Isaiah 52:14) If the princes sinned, how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they did not forbid the princes. - BT Shabbat 54b
Latin saying: Qui tacet consentire videtur “silence is consent”
Another explanation: Yocheved was called Shiphrah because through her the people of Israel increased
(sh’paru) and were fertile. Miriam was called Puah because she lifted (hophiah) up Israel to God. Yocheved
was called Shiphrah because her deeds were beautiful (sh’iphra) before God. Miriam was called Puah because
she defied (hophiah) Pharaoh, all but thumbing her nose at him, saying, “Woe to this man when God comes
to settle with him." Pharaoh, filled with rage, was about to have her put to death. But Yocheved, who was
called Shiphrah because she used to smooth over (meshapperet) her daughter's impudence, conciliated Pharaoh
by saying, "Need you pay attention to her? She is only a child and doesn't know a thing."
- Sh’mot Rabbah 1:13
Miriam and Yocheved were the balance of wisdom and courage, speaking and knowing when to be silent.
Tradition gives a major caveat on obligation to speak up: Only when we actually have power to stop something
But in a democracy, a vocal majority has power to stop anything
Argument that ‘nobody is listening’ swiftly becomes an argument for mass silence
Tyranny thrives on secrecy, and the implicit consent of the masses
Ramban on 1:10-pharoah’s plot to manipulate public so he would not be identified as bad guy
"Let us scheme against them" Pharaoh and his advisers did not decide to smite them with the sword, because that would be a great betrayal, to smite a nation that has come to the land on the command of the first king. Even the common people wouldn't give consent to the king to do such a crime, for he advises with them, and additionally the nation of Israel was numerous and mighty and would fight back in a great war. Rather he advised that they should act cleverly so that Israel should not feel that he is acting out of hate, and therefore he levied a tax on them, for it is common for foreigners to pay a tax to the king, as is seen by Solomon (Kings 1, 9:21)
In other words: found ways to oppress them that wouldn’t raise eyebrows
People would stay silent, allow their conscience to be subtly violated
2003: Iraqi war and duct taping windows
I was going to participate in anti-war rally, before Bush invaded Iraq
Government warned of impending biological attacks, told us to duct tape our windows
I didn’t go to the march—I was scared into silence
Silence is very dangerous because it empowers those who use it to support oppression, tyranny & abuse
Buchenwald-just outside city
Allied forces came in, forced locals to walk through in Sunday garments
And yet, when they talk about Nazis, some foreign element that came, did bad things, and disappeared
People don’t realize how much they themselves are complicit through complacency
I am very disturbed by peoples silence over Radzinger’s involvement in nazi youth
—“I had to do it”—what if nobody had complied?
On a personal level, Sometimes we are silent because we do not find the right words to speak up
Or do not feel anybody is listening
Art: honesty without hurting feelings
My experience recently:
Somebody laughing at me in demeaning way
I was upset, didn’t know how to respond, fell silent,
Finally told them: really hurt me that they were laughing at me
They claimed laughing because it was funny
I stood my ground, told them: still hurt my feelings
We need to find ways to speak up
For ourselves, in hurtful relationships
For what is right, in a world that often seems to be going in the wrong direction
Why?
In July 1942, Seeger, 23, was drafted into the Army. He was training as an aviation mechanic at Keesler Field in Mississippi. in the fall of 1942, Seeger, wrote a letter of protest to the California chapter of the American Legion. It was to the point:
Dear Sirs -
I felt shocked, outraged, and disgusted to read that the California American Legion voted to 1) deport all Japanese after the war, citizen or not, 2) Bar all Japanese descendants from citizenship!!
We, who may have to give our lives in this great struggle—we're fighting precisely to free the world of such Hitlerism, such narrow jingoism.
If you deport Japanese, why not Germans, Italians, Rumanians, Hungarians, and Bulgarians?
If you bar from citizenship descendants of Japanese, why not descendants of English? After all, we once fought with them too.
America is great and strong as she is because we have so far been a haven to all oppressed.
I felt sick at heart to read of this matter.
Yours truly,
Pvt. Peter Seeger
I am writing also to the Los Angeles Times
"How did the American Legion respond? It forwarded Seeger's note to the FBI in San Francisco. And somehow this matter was brought to the attention of the Military Intelligence Service of the War Department. Within weeks, military intelligence was investigating Seeger—and soon updating the FBI on its effort. The official "reason for investigation," as numerous military reports forwarded to the FBI noted, was that "Subject wrote letter protesting and criticizing the California American Legion's resolution advocating deportation of all Japanese, citizens or not, after the war, and barring all Japanese descendants from citizenship.""
Banal, something many of us would have done
Irony: now we all see that the government acted in an un-American way
Perhaps there are times when we must speak up
Whoever can protest to his household [for committing a sin] but does not, is seized for [the sins of] his household. If he could protest to his fellow citizens, he is seized for the sins of his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for the sins of the whole world. Rab Papa observed, the members of the Resh Galuta's household are seized for the whole world. Even as Rabbi Hanina said, “Why is it written, ‘The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof” (Isaiah 52:14) If the princes sinned, how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they did not forbid the princes. - BT Shabbat 54b
Latin saying: Qui tacet consentire videtur “silence is consent”
Another explanation: Yocheved was called Shiphrah because through her the people of Israel increased
(sh’paru) and were fertile. Miriam was called Puah because she lifted (hophiah) up Israel to God. Yocheved
was called Shiphrah because her deeds were beautiful (sh’iphra) before God. Miriam was called Puah because
she defied (hophiah) Pharaoh, all but thumbing her nose at him, saying, “Woe to this man when God comes
to settle with him." Pharaoh, filled with rage, was about to have her put to death. But Yocheved, who was
called Shiphrah because she used to smooth over (meshapperet) her daughter's impudence, conciliated Pharaoh
by saying, "Need you pay attention to her? She is only a child and doesn't know a thing."
- Sh’mot Rabbah 1:13
Miriam and Yocheved were the balance of wisdom and courage, speaking and knowing when to be silent.
Tradition gives a major caveat on obligation to speak up: Only when we actually have power to stop something
But in a democracy, a vocal majority has power to stop anything
Argument that ‘nobody is listening’ swiftly becomes an argument for mass silence
Tyranny thrives on secrecy, and the implicit consent of the masses
Ramban on 1:10-pharoah’s plot to manipulate public so he would not be identified as bad guy
"Let us scheme against them" Pharaoh and his advisers did not decide to smite them with the sword, because that would be a great betrayal, to smite a nation that has come to the land on the command of the first king. Even the common people wouldn't give consent to the king to do such a crime, for he advises with them, and additionally the nation of Israel was numerous and mighty and would fight back in a great war. Rather he advised that they should act cleverly so that Israel should not feel that he is acting out of hate, and therefore he levied a tax on them, for it is common for foreigners to pay a tax to the king, as is seen by Solomon (Kings 1, 9:21)
In other words: found ways to oppress them that wouldn’t raise eyebrows
People would stay silent, allow their conscience to be subtly violated
2003: Iraqi war and duct taping windows
I was going to participate in anti-war rally, before Bush invaded Iraq
Government warned of impending biological attacks, told us to duct tape our windows
I didn’t go to the march—I was scared into silence
Silence is very dangerous because it empowers those who use it to support oppression, tyranny & abuse
Buchenwald-just outside city
Allied forces came in, forced locals to walk through in Sunday garments
And yet, when they talk about Nazis, some foreign element that came, did bad things, and disappeared
People don’t realize how much they themselves are complicit through complacency
I am very disturbed by peoples silence over Radzinger’s involvement in nazi youth
—“I had to do it”—what if nobody had complied?
On a personal level, Sometimes we are silent because we do not find the right words to speak up
Or do not feel anybody is listening
Art: honesty without hurting feelings
My experience recently:
Somebody laughing at me in demeaning way
I was upset, didn’t know how to respond, fell silent,
Finally told them: really hurt me that they were laughing at me
They claimed laughing because it was funny
I stood my ground, told them: still hurt my feelings
We need to find ways to speak up
For ourselves, in hurtful relationships
For what is right, in a world that often seems to be going in the wrong direction
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Kol Nidre 5776: sanctifying digital communication
Kol Nidre 5776 sanctifying digital communication
On Rosh Hashanah, we discussed some of the opportunities and challenges of our technological society. One of the amazing things that has happened is the advent of email. When I was at Dartmouth, in the 90’s, it was the early days of email; all students had an account, and it was something of a novelty. I never dreamed I would be asking my wife to email me the shopping list on my way home, so I could use my cell phone at the store. In Brooklyn, we could not find a single time all the members of the young family programming committee could meet, so we just met vie email thread. Some people could participate at lunch at work, at 3 am in their jammies.
Judaism has always recognized that communication is one of the places we are most likely to hurt each other. Language is the primary way we relate to each other, and according to the mystics and the literal sense of the torah, divine speech underlies and even forms the substance of creation.
There is a halachic term, lashon hara, evil speech. Lashon hara is more than just gossip. Lashon hara is any time I hurt another person with my words. They can be true or false, they can be an insinuation, a hint, even a non-verbal gesture. And there is an extensive body of literature exploring the details of what constitutes lashon hara.
We are still in an exploratory phase when it comes to texting and email, both as a society and as jews. The language of texting is evolving daily, now with innumerable emoticons. The Japanese site 2channel has literally hundreds of emoticons! I am inviting us to explore how this body of wisdom applies to email.
One of the basic challenges of email is the fact that there is no face to face interaction. There’s an enigmatic reference in Bereshit to eight kings who "reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites" (Gen. 36:31). Isaac Luria, the founder of Lurianic kabbalah, taught that they died because they didn’t look panim bepanim, face to face. For Luria, these 10 kings were an early model for the spiritual substructure of the universe; they did not survive, and were replaced by a universe in which spiritual elements do look in each other’s faces. A universe of non-relation, of parallel play without true interaction, cannot survive; our universe is built on face to face relation. Babies know this; newborns are designed to focus on faces. It is one of our first instincts.
What happens when we lose the face?
When we communicate electronically, we cannot convey a tone of voice or body language, leading the other person to guess at our affect. So a well intentioned, calmed “why did you do that” can come across as an accusatory “why did you do that?” I have heard that 90% of communication is body language [I think my other 90% rule applies here]. The Talmud says when we smile, the white of our teeth is like the white of mother’s milk. Smiling is like giving someone mother’s milk. So, the Talmud, teaches, we should have a generally friendly, smiling demeanor. We can’t do that with emails. We can’t smile, unless we put in an emoticon and look like it’s written by a teenager. That’s a problem.
We also lose the other person’s facial gesture, body language. It is so easy to hurt another person in conversation; the Talmud says embarrassing someone is like shedding blood. If I see that I have upset you, and we are in person, I can modify what I’ve said, “oh, I don’t mean it that way,” or, “I’m sorry, that came out harsher than I meant.” I can tend to your feelings. If you’re not in the room, though, your feelings tend to fester, they don’t get tended to.
We tend to correct ourselves in communication—it is a living dialogue which shifts in response to the other person’s reactions. But when we email, which often happens very quickly, there is a permanent record, and if we try to change what we say, the person can point back and say, “look what you wrote.” We need to be able to take back our words. It is said that god tried to create the world based on emet, on truth, but he realized it wouldn’t work, so he cast it underground. Life requires kapparah, covering over, forgetting. Our relationships could not survive the glaring light of constantly scrutinizing what has been said in the past.
Another challenge of email is that we tend to forget how many people we are talking to. There’s a big difference between a small private conversation, and talking in front of 100 people. A few weeks ago, I was in the woods on my day off, so what do I do in the woods on my day off but check my email. Pam Saeks had relayed some of foundation’s questions about the synagogue to the members of the group that requested the grant. I whipped off a quick email on my cell phone, giving the names of the cutting edge places we are modelling our approach on. The next day, Brian Jaffee, the CEO of federation says to me “great email.” Apparently I wasn’t able to see every name that was in the cc field!
Several years ago, CNN reported the story of Jamie Diamond, an employee at a public relations firm, who emailed his boss about how to deal with a client. His boss wrote back about the clients' incompetence and how they hindered the team's ability to get anything done. But, oops -- the clients received the email as well. They yanked their $5 million account immediately
Fortunately, in my case, it worked to our benefit. But we often forget how many people we are talking to, and often include people who really don’t need to be included. According to Forbes, this is actually one of the biggest time wasters right now; many managers spend 20 hours per week on emails, many of which are just forwarded conversations they are being let in on.
The central example of lashon hara in the Torah is specifically about bringing a 3rd party into the conversation, who really should not have been included. The Jews are out in the desert, after Mt Sinai, and Moses decides that since he’s always on call for god, he is going to live a celibate life, and separates from his wife tzippora. Miriam, Moses’ sister, feels bad for tzippora, and goes to talk to aaron, her brother, instead of moses. For this, she is struck with leprosy, symbolic of lashon hara.
The central idea is that if we have something critical to say, we go directly to the person with whom we have a problem. This is the mitzvah of tochecha, loving rebuke done in a way which helps a person improve without hurting their feelings. Complaining to a 3rd party, even if they already know, is lashon hara.
Why is it human nature to complain to a 3rd party instead of the person themselves? Why was it totally natural for Miriam to go to aaron instead of directly to moses?
Perhaps because we are scared of telling the person, so it’s just easier to tell someone else. Miriam was scared Moses might be upset, or she was scared she would hurt his feelings
Perhaps because we don’t believe the person will hear us—Miriam wanted aaron to go together with her to moses, to make sure he’d listen
Sometimes complaining to a 3rd party is actually a form of revenge: You hurt me, I just want to hurt you back by telling other people about you. We get angry and naturally want to lash out.
The guldeline for rebuke is that we need to go directly to the person, and only bring in other people if the party proves recalcitrant. Miriam should have gone straight to moses, and if he wouldn’t listen, ask aaron to talk to him too.
We also need to be sure of our motives: that we are doing it to help the person improve, and to repair our relationship, not to get revenge. Miriam talking to aaron is just venting—it’s not actually helpful
Let’s imagine Miriam and aaron had smart phones in the desert. There is such a temptation for Miriam to cc aaron; maybe she’s thinking that otherwise he might ignore it; maybe she really is friends with tzippora and wants to embarrass him, or just lash out as much as she can. cc’ing is such an incredibly easy way to do lashon hara! I have noticed that the more upset people are, the more people they cc; really, the more upset we are the fewer people we should cc.
I’d like to offer some guidelines for us, both as individuals and as a community. I'd like to empower all of us to enforce these guidelines.
1. Notice when an email needs to be an in person discussion
If there might be substantive disagreement, we need to talk in person.
If somebody might be upset, it needs to be handled in person.
If you are upset, it should be handled in person.
If you are complaining about what someone did, it needs to be done in person.
2. Once we’ve had the in person meeting, don’t go and kvetch about it on email afterward.
According to Halacha, once a court has made a decision, a member can’t say ‘I didn’t agree’. Once the decision is made, you’re not allowed to kvetch. It’s pretty good advice.
3. Avoid Lashon hara by cc
Halachically, we are supposed to communicate negative information to the minimal number of people necessary to accomplish the result. If we have a problem with something someone did, we go to them directly. My advice is if it’s negative, there shouldn’t be anybody in the cc field. We need to question our motives very carefully when we add that cc.
4. Don’t forward a private email
There’s a halachic presumption that private conversations—things told to one or two people--are private. We need to be extremely careful forwarding someone’s private email.
5. Cc for nice reasons too
a. take the time to copy someone’s boss when they do something great
b. what a world it would be if everyone did something like that even once a month... or once a year.
Chofetz chayim’s prayer:
Master of the Universe, may it be Your will, Compassionate and Gracious G-d, that You grant me the merit today and every day to guard my mouth and tongue from loshon hora and rechilus.
And may I be zealous not to speak ill even of an individual, and certainly not of the entire Jewish people or a portion of it; and even more so, may I be zealous not to complain about the ways of the Holy One, Blessed is He.
May I be zealous not to speak words of falsehood, flattery, strife, anger, arrogance, hurt, embarrassment, mockery, and all other forbidden forms of speech.
Grant me the merit to speak only that which is necessary for my physical and spiritual well-being, and may all my deeds and words be for the sake of Heaven
I would add:
May we as a community and as individuals use our mouths, mouses, and cell phones only for helping each other, lifting each other up, and bringing holiness to the world through our kind and loving interactions
On Rosh Hashanah, we discussed some of the opportunities and challenges of our technological society. One of the amazing things that has happened is the advent of email. When I was at Dartmouth, in the 90’s, it was the early days of email; all students had an account, and it was something of a novelty. I never dreamed I would be asking my wife to email me the shopping list on my way home, so I could use my cell phone at the store. In Brooklyn, we could not find a single time all the members of the young family programming committee could meet, so we just met vie email thread. Some people could participate at lunch at work, at 3 am in their jammies.
Judaism has always recognized that communication is one of the places we are most likely to hurt each other. Language is the primary way we relate to each other, and according to the mystics and the literal sense of the torah, divine speech underlies and even forms the substance of creation.
There is a halachic term, lashon hara, evil speech. Lashon hara is more than just gossip. Lashon hara is any time I hurt another person with my words. They can be true or false, they can be an insinuation, a hint, even a non-verbal gesture. And there is an extensive body of literature exploring the details of what constitutes lashon hara.
We are still in an exploratory phase when it comes to texting and email, both as a society and as jews. The language of texting is evolving daily, now with innumerable emoticons. The Japanese site 2channel has literally hundreds of emoticons! I am inviting us to explore how this body of wisdom applies to email.
One of the basic challenges of email is the fact that there is no face to face interaction. There’s an enigmatic reference in Bereshit to eight kings who "reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites" (Gen. 36:31). Isaac Luria, the founder of Lurianic kabbalah, taught that they died because they didn’t look panim bepanim, face to face. For Luria, these 10 kings were an early model for the spiritual substructure of the universe; they did not survive, and were replaced by a universe in which spiritual elements do look in each other’s faces. A universe of non-relation, of parallel play without true interaction, cannot survive; our universe is built on face to face relation. Babies know this; newborns are designed to focus on faces. It is one of our first instincts.
What happens when we lose the face?
When we communicate electronically, we cannot convey a tone of voice or body language, leading the other person to guess at our affect. So a well intentioned, calmed “why did you do that” can come across as an accusatory “why did you do that?” I have heard that 90% of communication is body language [I think my other 90% rule applies here]. The Talmud says when we smile, the white of our teeth is like the white of mother’s milk. Smiling is like giving someone mother’s milk. So, the Talmud, teaches, we should have a generally friendly, smiling demeanor. We can’t do that with emails. We can’t smile, unless we put in an emoticon and look like it’s written by a teenager. That’s a problem.
We also lose the other person’s facial gesture, body language. It is so easy to hurt another person in conversation; the Talmud says embarrassing someone is like shedding blood. If I see that I have upset you, and we are in person, I can modify what I’ve said, “oh, I don’t mean it that way,” or, “I’m sorry, that came out harsher than I meant.” I can tend to your feelings. If you’re not in the room, though, your feelings tend to fester, they don’t get tended to.
We tend to correct ourselves in communication—it is a living dialogue which shifts in response to the other person’s reactions. But when we email, which often happens very quickly, there is a permanent record, and if we try to change what we say, the person can point back and say, “look what you wrote.” We need to be able to take back our words. It is said that god tried to create the world based on emet, on truth, but he realized it wouldn’t work, so he cast it underground. Life requires kapparah, covering over, forgetting. Our relationships could not survive the glaring light of constantly scrutinizing what has been said in the past.
Another challenge of email is that we tend to forget how many people we are talking to. There’s a big difference between a small private conversation, and talking in front of 100 people. A few weeks ago, I was in the woods on my day off, so what do I do in the woods on my day off but check my email. Pam Saeks had relayed some of foundation’s questions about the synagogue to the members of the group that requested the grant. I whipped off a quick email on my cell phone, giving the names of the cutting edge places we are modelling our approach on. The next day, Brian Jaffee, the CEO of federation says to me “great email.” Apparently I wasn’t able to see every name that was in the cc field!
Several years ago, CNN reported the story of Jamie Diamond, an employee at a public relations firm, who emailed his boss about how to deal with a client. His boss wrote back about the clients' incompetence and how they hindered the team's ability to get anything done. But, oops -- the clients received the email as well. They yanked their $5 million account immediately
Fortunately, in my case, it worked to our benefit. But we often forget how many people we are talking to, and often include people who really don’t need to be included. According to Forbes, this is actually one of the biggest time wasters right now; many managers spend 20 hours per week on emails, many of which are just forwarded conversations they are being let in on.
The central example of lashon hara in the Torah is specifically about bringing a 3rd party into the conversation, who really should not have been included. The Jews are out in the desert, after Mt Sinai, and Moses decides that since he’s always on call for god, he is going to live a celibate life, and separates from his wife tzippora. Miriam, Moses’ sister, feels bad for tzippora, and goes to talk to aaron, her brother, instead of moses. For this, she is struck with leprosy, symbolic of lashon hara.
The central idea is that if we have something critical to say, we go directly to the person with whom we have a problem. This is the mitzvah of tochecha, loving rebuke done in a way which helps a person improve without hurting their feelings. Complaining to a 3rd party, even if they already know, is lashon hara.
Why is it human nature to complain to a 3rd party instead of the person themselves? Why was it totally natural for Miriam to go to aaron instead of directly to moses?
Perhaps because we are scared of telling the person, so it’s just easier to tell someone else. Miriam was scared Moses might be upset, or she was scared she would hurt his feelings
Perhaps because we don’t believe the person will hear us—Miriam wanted aaron to go together with her to moses, to make sure he’d listen
Sometimes complaining to a 3rd party is actually a form of revenge: You hurt me, I just want to hurt you back by telling other people about you. We get angry and naturally want to lash out.
The guldeline for rebuke is that we need to go directly to the person, and only bring in other people if the party proves recalcitrant. Miriam should have gone straight to moses, and if he wouldn’t listen, ask aaron to talk to him too.
We also need to be sure of our motives: that we are doing it to help the person improve, and to repair our relationship, not to get revenge. Miriam talking to aaron is just venting—it’s not actually helpful
Let’s imagine Miriam and aaron had smart phones in the desert. There is such a temptation for Miriam to cc aaron; maybe she’s thinking that otherwise he might ignore it; maybe she really is friends with tzippora and wants to embarrass him, or just lash out as much as she can. cc’ing is such an incredibly easy way to do lashon hara! I have noticed that the more upset people are, the more people they cc; really, the more upset we are the fewer people we should cc.
I’d like to offer some guidelines for us, both as individuals and as a community. I'd like to empower all of us to enforce these guidelines.
1. Notice when an email needs to be an in person discussion
If there might be substantive disagreement, we need to talk in person.
If somebody might be upset, it needs to be handled in person.
If you are upset, it should be handled in person.
If you are complaining about what someone did, it needs to be done in person.
2. Once we’ve had the in person meeting, don’t go and kvetch about it on email afterward.
According to Halacha, once a court has made a decision, a member can’t say ‘I didn’t agree’. Once the decision is made, you’re not allowed to kvetch. It’s pretty good advice.
3. Avoid Lashon hara by cc
Halachically, we are supposed to communicate negative information to the minimal number of people necessary to accomplish the result. If we have a problem with something someone did, we go to them directly. My advice is if it’s negative, there shouldn’t be anybody in the cc field. We need to question our motives very carefully when we add that cc.
4. Don’t forward a private email
There’s a halachic presumption that private conversations—things told to one or two people--are private. We need to be extremely careful forwarding someone’s private email.
5. Cc for nice reasons too
a. take the time to copy someone’s boss when they do something great
b. what a world it would be if everyone did something like that even once a month... or once a year.
Chofetz chayim’s prayer:
Master of the Universe, may it be Your will, Compassionate and Gracious G-d, that You grant me the merit today and every day to guard my mouth and tongue from loshon hora and rechilus.
And may I be zealous not to speak ill even of an individual, and certainly not of the entire Jewish people or a portion of it; and even more so, may I be zealous not to complain about the ways of the Holy One, Blessed is He.
May I be zealous not to speak words of falsehood, flattery, strife, anger, arrogance, hurt, embarrassment, mockery, and all other forbidden forms of speech.
Grant me the merit to speak only that which is necessary for my physical and spiritual well-being, and may all my deeds and words be for the sake of Heaven
I would add:
May we as a community and as individuals use our mouths, mouses, and cell phones only for helping each other, lifting each other up, and bringing holiness to the world through our kind and loving interactions
Yom Kippur 5776: The Limits of Empathy
Yom Kippur 5776: Whose life matters?
For a lot of us, yom kippur is about introspection—taking stock of my life, what I’ve accomplished. What I haven’t accomplished. Taking stock of my relationships, what’s new and wonderful, what’s broken and needs my attention. And of course we have Yizkor, where we remember our loved ones who are no longer with us, and our grief tinged memories of their presence in our life.
But Yom Kippur is not just about looking in. It is about taking stock of where I stand in the world, how I have impacted the world, what’s wrong with the world even if it’s not my fault, and how I can heal it. The priest’s 3 confessions moved out in concentric circles: first we take account of our personal lives, our families, what happens in the private sphere, and take responsibility for what I’ve broken. Then we move out to our tribe, and then the whole nation. What have our nation done wrong? What are the sins of our nation even if I have not caused them? The Talmud teaches that the high priest, especially, bears everything on his shoulder because at least he could have davened harder, for peace, for safety. It was a huge weight to carry.
How much of a weight do we have to carry on our shoulders? Do we have to bear moral responsibility for the whole nation, for the world?
How far must our empathy extend?
If empathy is a zero sum game, if having concern for one person means I neglect another, then it cannot possibly extend to the entire nation. I must pick winners, and in doing so, pick losers. I only have limited attention. If I pay attention to the black community, I neglect the police who are getting shot at trying to keep the peace. If I pay attention to what’s going on here, I neglect the millions of syrians fleeing the atrocities of Assad, and the horrors going on in ISIL, in Iran, all over the arab middle east.
When I pick up Aliza, to feed her, Daniel wants to sit on my lap, which is okay because I have two legs. When I kiss Daniel, Hannah thinks it means I don’t love her, and of course, my legs are already allocated. We have a basic assumption that love is a limited resource,
But What if loving one person, having empathy for one, actually extends my compassion, makes me more capable of loving of loving others? What if empathy is not a zero sum game, but rather like the ocean, where you may take a cup but it is still full? Or better yet, what if it is like a candle, where if I take the heat to light another candle, I actually increase the light in the room? What if by having empathy even for the people hardest to have empathy for, I actually extend my ability to empathize with the entire world?
Some people scratched their heads when pope francis washed the feet of juvenile offenders. Did these people deserve his concern? And as jews, we are tempted to say, yeah, that’s catholic meshugas; we know better.
There is a very interesting Mishnah in Sanhedrin, about what the shechina (the divine presence) says when a murderer is executed. This is a murderer we are talking about—someone who was convicted with absolute certainty, by witnesses who warned them and saw them commit the act. When such a person is executed, the shechina complains, “my head hurts.” The divine presence in the world is an empathy that feels the pain of all human beings, even a murderer.
Having empathy for a murderer does not mean we’ve taken sides, that we don’t have empathy for the victim. It means our soul has become so expansive that we even feel the pain of such a person.
The haftarah for today, from the book of Isaiah, tells us not to be overly introspective today. It tells us to take stock of the world, and take responsibility for it, to feed the hungry, take the needy into our homes and have them at our table.
Why the needy?
The mystics tell us that actually, the needy are an embodiment of the shechina, of the divine presence in the world who is eternally dependent on the divine, and has no light of her own, much like the moon is in need of light from the sun.
What about the needy who are caught up in drugs, in violence? Are they too an embodiment of the shechina? As we all know, poverty is intertwined with gangs, drugs, violence. Is Isaiah telling us to focus on such people, on Yom Kippur?
Two weeks ago, we had a selichot program that I found heart opening. We were visited by 3 students at cincinnatti cooks, Kye, David, and Rachel.
Little David, who isn’t so little, looks like a gang member. He is a strong young man, black, he wore a baseball cap, and dressed like a gang member. He actually was, previously. He grew up in a poor, violent neighborhood, where you had to be tough to get by on the street. As he said, you couldn’t show any signs of feelings, of softness. He had to miss school regularly to take home his family’s WIC food baskets. I don’t know if he finished high school, but he got caught up in drugs and gangs, and was convicted on a gun conviction. Many of the students grew up with abusive parent figures, going hungry, being beaten and insulted as children.
Little dave is in the Cincinnatti Cooks program now, and almost finished. He has interviewed for a job as a dishwasher at a chain restaurant, which he is excited to take. I worked as a dishwasher in high school—it was miserable, underpaid, hard work. This is Little Dave’s path out of the criminal system.
Listening to dave’s story, and Kye’s, and Ruth’s, I was struck by just how hard their lives are, how hard they have to work just to stay out of criminal trouble. At the dessert reception, Little david was piling up desserts. At first I figured, okay, he’s not worried about seeming appropriate, but then it dawned on me, he hasn’t had dinner. I offered him dinner, and he gave me a look of “that would be terrific.” The students in the program do not make an income; they get to take home one portion for their families. Some of them are homeless, or living in a recovery center.
Ruth was laid off from her job at a day care, because she is restricted for working with children for 10 years from her date of conviction; she lost her house, and at age 66, she is just beginning a career as a food service worker. She described the temptation of wanting to cash a forged check, just to have basic necessities. What an incredibly hard row to hoe.
I want to challenge us with the possibility that david, Ruth, Kye are included among the people Isaiah is saying we should be thinking about today. Isaiah calls us to think about the stain of poverty on our nation, a stain which has only spread, not gotten better. Perhaps, too, we should even think about people like Little david who chose gangs and drugs because it was the only viable career path they could see, and hurt people along the way. Can we, like god, be poshet yad leshavim, extending our hand out to those who wish to return, and have empathy for Little David, Kye, and Ruth?
I think we can. That night after selichot, and the next morning, many of us reacted strongly realizing that we had hungry, homeless people here, and hadn’t done more for them. One person poignantly asked, did they just come to serve our own spiritual needs, for us to feel good? What were we doing for them? It was a very good question.
This past year, riots have erupted under the banner of black lives matter. It is a truism, of course, that black lives matter; but the challenge has been that it seems to negate other peoples’ lives from mattering. What about white lives, like Zachary Hammond, a teenager in south Carolina who was shot while he was out on a date, who had 10 grams of marijuana on him? What about cops, like sonny kim, who was just a wonderful human being? What about the innocent children in sex slavery, and slaves on fishing boats, don’t they matter too?
And what about the fact that many of these young black men who have been shot really were often up to criminal activity, or that they didn’t follow police orders? Shouldn’t we focus our attention instead on people who really are just the innocent bystanders, people who chose not to go down the path of criminal activity?
Every life matters. The Mishnah teaches that when a human king stamps coins, they all look the same—they have the image of the king. When god stamnps coins we all look different, but we still have the image of the king. We are all unique manifestations of the divine image. Can we understand that all lives matter, that there’s no such thing as a lowlife?
The window into this, for me, is Little David. We could write him off as a gangster, a criminal. Our system does exactly that, by making it so hard to return to society, by leaving drug trafficking as the only viable career option open to him. Little david could easily be shot by a cop, and nobody would blink. Can we see the divine image in him?
I think once we do this, we develop our empathy, our ability to see the divine in everybody. We challenge ourselves, we ask ourselves: is everybody in our country given the opportunity to lead a life in which they really matter, where they are not the dregs of society?
I am challenging us, as a community, to look at the poor neighborhoods in Cincinnati, black neighborhoods with 74% childhood poverty rate, and ask how we can help. The black community has 8x the level of gun violence as non-black; 1 in 6 black men will be incarcerated in their lifetime. Isaiah is talking about these communities. Isaiah challenges us: what would happen if we take them into our homes, feed them, clothe them, help them?
Isaiah calls us to unlock the fetters of wickedness around the world:
To speak out about slavery—in the sex industry, fishing, chocolate
To speak out about oppression of religious minorities happening right now in the middle east
Isaiah calls us, too, to reach out to our own communities, to places like the new prospect Baptist Church, in the old JCC, and ask how we can help. To reach out to Cincinnatti cooks, which is helping people like david rebuild their lives, giving them a second chance, and ask how we can help. To join with AMOS, which I am a member of, and pursue policies which create equal opportunities. And to take a deep look at our society, and not accept the status quo, to ask what we can finally do to untangle the terribly tangled web of poverty, drugs, and violence that traps people like Little david, to help them live lives that matter, that honor the divine image in them.
For a lot of us, yom kippur is about introspection—taking stock of my life, what I’ve accomplished. What I haven’t accomplished. Taking stock of my relationships, what’s new and wonderful, what’s broken and needs my attention. And of course we have Yizkor, where we remember our loved ones who are no longer with us, and our grief tinged memories of their presence in our life.
But Yom Kippur is not just about looking in. It is about taking stock of where I stand in the world, how I have impacted the world, what’s wrong with the world even if it’s not my fault, and how I can heal it. The priest’s 3 confessions moved out in concentric circles: first we take account of our personal lives, our families, what happens in the private sphere, and take responsibility for what I’ve broken. Then we move out to our tribe, and then the whole nation. What have our nation done wrong? What are the sins of our nation even if I have not caused them? The Talmud teaches that the high priest, especially, bears everything on his shoulder because at least he could have davened harder, for peace, for safety. It was a huge weight to carry.
How much of a weight do we have to carry on our shoulders? Do we have to bear moral responsibility for the whole nation, for the world?
How far must our empathy extend?
If empathy is a zero sum game, if having concern for one person means I neglect another, then it cannot possibly extend to the entire nation. I must pick winners, and in doing so, pick losers. I only have limited attention. If I pay attention to the black community, I neglect the police who are getting shot at trying to keep the peace. If I pay attention to what’s going on here, I neglect the millions of syrians fleeing the atrocities of Assad, and the horrors going on in ISIL, in Iran, all over the arab middle east.
When I pick up Aliza, to feed her, Daniel wants to sit on my lap, which is okay because I have two legs. When I kiss Daniel, Hannah thinks it means I don’t love her, and of course, my legs are already allocated. We have a basic assumption that love is a limited resource,
But What if loving one person, having empathy for one, actually extends my compassion, makes me more capable of loving of loving others? What if empathy is not a zero sum game, but rather like the ocean, where you may take a cup but it is still full? Or better yet, what if it is like a candle, where if I take the heat to light another candle, I actually increase the light in the room? What if by having empathy even for the people hardest to have empathy for, I actually extend my ability to empathize with the entire world?
Some people scratched their heads when pope francis washed the feet of juvenile offenders. Did these people deserve his concern? And as jews, we are tempted to say, yeah, that’s catholic meshugas; we know better.
There is a very interesting Mishnah in Sanhedrin, about what the shechina (the divine presence) says when a murderer is executed. This is a murderer we are talking about—someone who was convicted with absolute certainty, by witnesses who warned them and saw them commit the act. When such a person is executed, the shechina complains, “my head hurts.” The divine presence in the world is an empathy that feels the pain of all human beings, even a murderer.
Having empathy for a murderer does not mean we’ve taken sides, that we don’t have empathy for the victim. It means our soul has become so expansive that we even feel the pain of such a person.
The haftarah for today, from the book of Isaiah, tells us not to be overly introspective today. It tells us to take stock of the world, and take responsibility for it, to feed the hungry, take the needy into our homes and have them at our table.
Why the needy?
The mystics tell us that actually, the needy are an embodiment of the shechina, of the divine presence in the world who is eternally dependent on the divine, and has no light of her own, much like the moon is in need of light from the sun.
What about the needy who are caught up in drugs, in violence? Are they too an embodiment of the shechina? As we all know, poverty is intertwined with gangs, drugs, violence. Is Isaiah telling us to focus on such people, on Yom Kippur?
Two weeks ago, we had a selichot program that I found heart opening. We were visited by 3 students at cincinnatti cooks, Kye, David, and Rachel.
Little David, who isn’t so little, looks like a gang member. He is a strong young man, black, he wore a baseball cap, and dressed like a gang member. He actually was, previously. He grew up in a poor, violent neighborhood, where you had to be tough to get by on the street. As he said, you couldn’t show any signs of feelings, of softness. He had to miss school regularly to take home his family’s WIC food baskets. I don’t know if he finished high school, but he got caught up in drugs and gangs, and was convicted on a gun conviction. Many of the students grew up with abusive parent figures, going hungry, being beaten and insulted as children.
Little dave is in the Cincinnatti Cooks program now, and almost finished. He has interviewed for a job as a dishwasher at a chain restaurant, which he is excited to take. I worked as a dishwasher in high school—it was miserable, underpaid, hard work. This is Little Dave’s path out of the criminal system.
Listening to dave’s story, and Kye’s, and Ruth’s, I was struck by just how hard their lives are, how hard they have to work just to stay out of criminal trouble. At the dessert reception, Little david was piling up desserts. At first I figured, okay, he’s not worried about seeming appropriate, but then it dawned on me, he hasn’t had dinner. I offered him dinner, and he gave me a look of “that would be terrific.” The students in the program do not make an income; they get to take home one portion for their families. Some of them are homeless, or living in a recovery center.
Ruth was laid off from her job at a day care, because she is restricted for working with children for 10 years from her date of conviction; she lost her house, and at age 66, she is just beginning a career as a food service worker. She described the temptation of wanting to cash a forged check, just to have basic necessities. What an incredibly hard row to hoe.
I want to challenge us with the possibility that david, Ruth, Kye are included among the people Isaiah is saying we should be thinking about today. Isaiah calls us to think about the stain of poverty on our nation, a stain which has only spread, not gotten better. Perhaps, too, we should even think about people like Little david who chose gangs and drugs because it was the only viable career path they could see, and hurt people along the way. Can we, like god, be poshet yad leshavim, extending our hand out to those who wish to return, and have empathy for Little David, Kye, and Ruth?
I think we can. That night after selichot, and the next morning, many of us reacted strongly realizing that we had hungry, homeless people here, and hadn’t done more for them. One person poignantly asked, did they just come to serve our own spiritual needs, for us to feel good? What were we doing for them? It was a very good question.
This past year, riots have erupted under the banner of black lives matter. It is a truism, of course, that black lives matter; but the challenge has been that it seems to negate other peoples’ lives from mattering. What about white lives, like Zachary Hammond, a teenager in south Carolina who was shot while he was out on a date, who had 10 grams of marijuana on him? What about cops, like sonny kim, who was just a wonderful human being? What about the innocent children in sex slavery, and slaves on fishing boats, don’t they matter too?
And what about the fact that many of these young black men who have been shot really were often up to criminal activity, or that they didn’t follow police orders? Shouldn’t we focus our attention instead on people who really are just the innocent bystanders, people who chose not to go down the path of criminal activity?
Every life matters. The Mishnah teaches that when a human king stamps coins, they all look the same—they have the image of the king. When god stamnps coins we all look different, but we still have the image of the king. We are all unique manifestations of the divine image. Can we understand that all lives matter, that there’s no such thing as a lowlife?
The window into this, for me, is Little David. We could write him off as a gangster, a criminal. Our system does exactly that, by making it so hard to return to society, by leaving drug trafficking as the only viable career option open to him. Little david could easily be shot by a cop, and nobody would blink. Can we see the divine image in him?
I think once we do this, we develop our empathy, our ability to see the divine in everybody. We challenge ourselves, we ask ourselves: is everybody in our country given the opportunity to lead a life in which they really matter, where they are not the dregs of society?
I am challenging us, as a community, to look at the poor neighborhoods in Cincinnati, black neighborhoods with 74% childhood poverty rate, and ask how we can help. The black community has 8x the level of gun violence as non-black; 1 in 6 black men will be incarcerated in their lifetime. Isaiah is talking about these communities. Isaiah challenges us: what would happen if we take them into our homes, feed them, clothe them, help them?
Isaiah calls us to unlock the fetters of wickedness around the world:
To speak out about slavery—in the sex industry, fishing, chocolate
To speak out about oppression of religious minorities happening right now in the middle east
Isaiah calls us, too, to reach out to our own communities, to places like the new prospect Baptist Church, in the old JCC, and ask how we can help. To reach out to Cincinnatti cooks, which is helping people like david rebuild their lives, giving them a second chance, and ask how we can help. To join with AMOS, which I am a member of, and pursue policies which create equal opportunities. And to take a deep look at our society, and not accept the status quo, to ask what we can finally do to untangle the terribly tangled web of poverty, drugs, and violence that traps people like Little david, to help them live lives that matter, that honor the divine image in them.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Uzis and 9 year olds
Hearing about Charles Vacca, the firing range instructor in Arizona who put an uzzi into the hands of a nine year old girl (who had never held one before) and set it to automatic, with predictable results, I wonder what a nine year old was doing firing a gun in the first place. In some parts of our society, guns are approached as toys: and if you don’t get to fire one off you’ve missed out on one of life’s great experiences. Yes, gun safety is taken seriously (in general), but there really is no reason for a child to be firing a gun. The 2nd amendment, which gun rights advocates always quote, has to do with the necessity of having a militia: what is now the Reserves, or the equivalent of volunteer firefighters, especially when there isn’t much of a standing army.
The glorification of guns and violence also is in our movies and videogames. Is it really okay for children to play with toy guns? Are we sure that doesn’t send them a message about the acceptability of violence, and of using power to resolve conflicts? Why is it okay for a child, or even adult, to engage in the fantasy of killing and murdering, in a video game? How can this not be harmful to our neshamas, our souls?
The Talmud has a discussion about carrying swords on Shabbat. Apparently, at the time of the discussion, people liked to wear ceremonial swords. If they can be considered a garment or ornament, then you are wearing, not carrying, so you can go out with it on Shabbat. If it is something you carry, an implement that is not part of an outfit, then you can’t carry it oon Shabbat. The gemara concludes that it is not an ornament, but rather a disgraceful thing (Shabbat 63a).
We need to teach this distaste for guns and violence to our children. Yes, sometimes they are necessary, sometimes we do have to put on uniforms and defend ourselves, but even then we are saddened by being turned into killers. Guns are never glorious.
May Mr. Vacca's family, as well as the little girl who he gave the uzzi to, and the families of all those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, be comforted.
The glorification of guns and violence also is in our movies and videogames. Is it really okay for children to play with toy guns? Are we sure that doesn’t send them a message about the acceptability of violence, and of using power to resolve conflicts? Why is it okay for a child, or even adult, to engage in the fantasy of killing and murdering, in a video game? How can this not be harmful to our neshamas, our souls?
The Talmud has a discussion about carrying swords on Shabbat. Apparently, at the time of the discussion, people liked to wear ceremonial swords. If they can be considered a garment or ornament, then you are wearing, not carrying, so you can go out with it on Shabbat. If it is something you carry, an implement that is not part of an outfit, then you can’t carry it oon Shabbat. The gemara concludes that it is not an ornament, but rather a disgraceful thing (Shabbat 63a).
We need to teach this distaste for guns and violence to our children. Yes, sometimes they are necessary, sometimes we do have to put on uniforms and defend ourselves, but even then we are saddened by being turned into killers. Guns are never glorious.
May Mr. Vacca's family, as well as the little girl who he gave the uzzi to, and the families of all those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, be comforted.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Judaism and the "right to stand your ground"
The George Zimmerman verdict is
Scary: opens door to vigilantes,
to becoming the wild west all over.
Whether or not jury was right there’s no just result
“right to stand your ground”
If you think about it, any time 2 people believe they have a "right to stand their ground," you end up with escalating conflict. When I imagine what happened that night (and I admit this is my own imaginative reconstruction), I imagine 2 people each thinking they are just standing their ground. Zimmerman, believing he had a right to protect his community against someone he thought seemed suspicious, even if only because of the color of his skin and his clothing style. And Martin, believing he had a right to protect himself against someone who seemed to be stalking him
When 2 people stand their ground, you have a stand off where only 1 person can win
There’s always a loser,
Since nobody wants to lose, so each person raises the stakes--there is a mutual escalation.
In this case, the stakes were raised so high that at least according to zimmerman’s testimony, only 1 of them would come out alive
Nobody felt an obligation to stand down, to de-escalate,
to walk away, which was what the dispatcher had told Zimmerman to do
It was a tragic inability to de-escalate
This is the problem with the whole attitude of "standing your ground."
“Standing your ground” is not a jewish value
Talmud: Jerusalem destroyed because people insisted on their legal rights—
let’s say shimon owed rubin 10 zuz, but shimon only had 9
so rubin insisted on the full 10 zuz
Rubin wouldn’t compromise.
Rubin was right halachically—but he was wrong because he wouldn’t compromise
And for this Jerusalem was destroyed
In jewish court proceedings, too, the court is instructed to try to negotiate a settlement first
And only then to adjudicate
The whole idea of a settlement is that it’s not necessarily what the halacha calls for
It’s about making peace between the two sides
Because the world survives through peace, not through who’s wight or wrong
Any of us who are married or have been know this
How long would a marriage survive if spouses stood their ground
If spouses always insisted on having their way?
Here at FJC, we are trying to build a spiritual community
It’s a lot like a mixed marriage—we’ve got traditionalist and progressive jews
Which creates a beautiful challenge
the rules we davven by, whether we have a mechitza or not,
Are far less important than how we treat each other,
Whether we care for each other, and treat each other respectfully.
Any win-lose struggle is really a lose-lose struggle
Any time we have a conflict and one sides wins, really both sides lose.
May we all learn
To be more gentle, more understanding, and willing to always seek compromise, to find solutions by which everyone comes out feeling good about what we are building together.
Scary: opens door to vigilantes,
to becoming the wild west all over.
Whether or not jury was right there’s no just result
“right to stand your ground”
If you think about it, any time 2 people believe they have a "right to stand their ground," you end up with escalating conflict. When I imagine what happened that night (and I admit this is my own imaginative reconstruction), I imagine 2 people each thinking they are just standing their ground. Zimmerman, believing he had a right to protect his community against someone he thought seemed suspicious, even if only because of the color of his skin and his clothing style. And Martin, believing he had a right to protect himself against someone who seemed to be stalking him
When 2 people stand their ground, you have a stand off where only 1 person can win
There’s always a loser,
Since nobody wants to lose, so each person raises the stakes--there is a mutual escalation.
In this case, the stakes were raised so high that at least according to zimmerman’s testimony, only 1 of them would come out alive
Nobody felt an obligation to stand down, to de-escalate,
to walk away, which was what the dispatcher had told Zimmerman to do
It was a tragic inability to de-escalate
This is the problem with the whole attitude of "standing your ground."
“Standing your ground” is not a jewish value
Talmud: Jerusalem destroyed because people insisted on their legal rights—
let’s say shimon owed rubin 10 zuz, but shimon only had 9
so rubin insisted on the full 10 zuz
Rubin wouldn’t compromise.
Rubin was right halachically—but he was wrong because he wouldn’t compromise
And for this Jerusalem was destroyed
In jewish court proceedings, too, the court is instructed to try to negotiate a settlement first
And only then to adjudicate
The whole idea of a settlement is that it’s not necessarily what the halacha calls for
It’s about making peace between the two sides
Because the world survives through peace, not through who’s wight or wrong
Any of us who are married or have been know this
How long would a marriage survive if spouses stood their ground
If spouses always insisted on having their way?
Here at FJC, we are trying to build a spiritual community
It’s a lot like a mixed marriage—we’ve got traditionalist and progressive jews
Which creates a beautiful challenge
the rules we davven by, whether we have a mechitza or not,
Are far less important than how we treat each other,
Whether we care for each other, and treat each other respectfully.
Any win-lose struggle is really a lose-lose struggle
Any time we have a conflict and one sides wins, really both sides lose.
May we all learn
To be more gentle, more understanding, and willing to always seek compromise, to find solutions by which everyone comes out feeling good about what we are building together.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Zimmerman's acquittal in the eyes of the Talmud
I was shocked by outcome of Zimmerman trial
And signed petitions to eric holder to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violation
Shocking that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin for being black in florida
Stalked him in his car, somehow provoked him,
And got away with killing him
It is a scary porecedent.
One wonders: does this open the door to a wild west mentality?
If someone stalks me, and I defend myself, can they then shoot me and claim self defense?
But I want to discuss a jewish perspective on the verdict per se
Even if Zimmerman’s actions were horrible
Which they were
Was the jury right to acquit, from a jewish perspective?
Was justice served?
In its discussion of court procedures for capital crimes, the Talmud institutes very careful procedures to make sure there is absolute proof of the crime. The Torah requires two witnesses, and the Talmud require that they both warn the criminal and unambiguously witness the act.
Sanh 37b:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6 if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7 But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8 May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.
The court procedure was so biased against false conviction that
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [Executing more than] one person in 70 years [would be considered a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.” [Makkot 1:10]
To which of course R Shimon b Gamliel responds:
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel responds, “they would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”
But the halacha is that we are careful about this procedure, because it is better to let someone go than to punish someone who’s innocent
In fact, the judges on a bet din are instructed to look for reasons to acquit.
Pesachim 12a:—cannot convict person if there’s any doubt they are equivalent
Cites Num 35:25: “the congregation shall deliver”
Rashi: we look for a reason to acquit
From a utilitarian perspective: it’s better to convict people even if you’re not 100% sure
This is Shimon ben Gamliel’s argument:
We would be a safer society if courts could convict people like Zimmerman
It would send the message: you can’t be a vigilante
But from a moral perspective, our own moral integrity as a society comes first
The ends don’t justify the means
Courts need to make sure they don’t punish innocent people
Or they themselves are acting immorally
our own moral integrity limits what we can do to protect public safety
The Zimmerman trial shows our society has problems
The possibility that someone could think it’s okay to assault and kill someone for appearing suspicious, based on racial stereotypes
That we have vigilantes driving around on town watch acting without regard for the law
But it also shows our justice system can work
People can be acquitted if there’s just a possibility of being innocent
On a personal level, when we are judging others’ motives
And tempted to condemn them, to judge them negatively,
We should always look for a tzad zechut, a way to view their actions positively
And through this, preserve peace in our communities and families.
And signed petitions to eric holder to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violation
Shocking that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin for being black in florida
Stalked him in his car, somehow provoked him,
And got away with killing him
It is a scary porecedent.
One wonders: does this open the door to a wild west mentality?
If someone stalks me, and I defend myself, can they then shoot me and claim self defense?
But I want to discuss a jewish perspective on the verdict per se
Even if Zimmerman’s actions were horrible
Which they were
Was the jury right to acquit, from a jewish perspective?
Was justice served?
In its discussion of court procedures for capital crimes, the Talmud institutes very careful procedures to make sure there is absolute proof of the crime. The Torah requires two witnesses, and the Talmud require that they both warn the criminal and unambiguously witness the act.
Sanh 37b:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6 if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7 But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8 May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.
The court procedure was so biased against false conviction that
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [Executing more than] one person in 70 years [would be considered a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.” [Makkot 1:10]
To which of course R Shimon b Gamliel responds:
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel responds, “they would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”
But the halacha is that we are careful about this procedure, because it is better to let someone go than to punish someone who’s innocent
In fact, the judges on a bet din are instructed to look for reasons to acquit.
Pesachim 12a:—cannot convict person if there’s any doubt they are equivalent
Cites Num 35:25: “the congregation shall deliver”
Rashi: we look for a reason to acquit
From a utilitarian perspective: it’s better to convict people even if you’re not 100% sure
This is Shimon ben Gamliel’s argument:
We would be a safer society if courts could convict people like Zimmerman
It would send the message: you can’t be a vigilante
But from a moral perspective, our own moral integrity as a society comes first
The ends don’t justify the means
Courts need to make sure they don’t punish innocent people
Or they themselves are acting immorally
our own moral integrity limits what we can do to protect public safety
The Zimmerman trial shows our society has problems
The possibility that someone could think it’s okay to assault and kill someone for appearing suspicious, based on racial stereotypes
That we have vigilantes driving around on town watch acting without regard for the law
But it also shows our justice system can work
People can be acquitted if there’s just a possibility of being innocent
On a personal level, when we are judging others’ motives
And tempted to condemn them, to judge them negatively,
We should always look for a tzad zechut, a way to view their actions positively
And through this, preserve peace in our communities and families.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Why Charles Ramsey was the hero
What would you do, if you heard a scream from a neighbor’s basement? You’d call the police, for sure. But them what? Would you go over? Would you wait outside until the police come? Would you call your survivalist buddy to come over and storm down the front door?
We were all shocked by what happened in Cleveland, a monster imprisoning and torturing four women, mindbogglingly evil acts.
Rescue after 10 years of enslavement was amazing:
A neighbor, Charles Ramsey was inside his house eating a McDonald’s meal when he heard a woman across the street began kicking at the door and screaming. He goes to the porch, hears her screaming “help, let me out.” Ramsey opened the door helped kick in the aluminum screen door through which Berry and her daughter escaped
“I’ve been there a year, she’s been right there next to me a year.”—this was the first time he had any inkling of anything off-kilter with his neighbor. He said he never had a clue anything was wrong. When he heard the screaming, he said, there is no feeling, you just do what you need to do.
It is an amazing story of heroism.
But there were also missed opportunities
Neighbors had called police over the years about weird things they saw:
three naked young girls crawling on all fours with dog leashes around their necks while three men (likely Castro's brothers) watched,
troubling pounds and screams,
a little girl looking out of an attic window.
3 years ago: neighbors heard a blood curdling shriek from the basement. The neighbors called the police. Nothing happened.
Last year a little girl saw a naked woman crawling out of castro’s house
And Castro was fired from his job as a school bus driver, after abducting a child for a joy ride in the school bus, which might have made police all the more concerned about reports about unusual activity at his house.
The neighbors say cops rarely followed up — once, they briefly knocked on Castro's door but left when he didn't show. The cops say they were never called. Or maybe they chalked it up to domestic disturbance, a couple quarrelling, and didn’t want to get involved.
It’s easy to blame the police for these missed opportunities. This is their job. But really it’s all of our jobs too. But could the neighbors have done more? Could they have been more tenacious?
The Torah says, “do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor, and most of us clearly seeing someone in distress will act to do something about it. Rashi: if we truly love our neighbor as ourself, we will never speak negatively about them, or seek to harm them, or desire for anything but the best for them. Certainly anybody would have called the police.
What if Ramsey had just called the police? Maybe they would have come on time. Or maybe they would have come a little too late, Interviewed Castroi, and found nothing amiss.
What made Ramsey’s response different was that he didn’t just call the police. He went up to the door, and seeing a hand sticking out, battered in the door.
Too often, when we are called to help, we do a half baked job. We offer to help someone, and it doesn’t happen, there’s no follow through. The neighbors tried to help over the ten years, they called the police, and went on with their day. Obviously, nobody wants to be a vigilante, but the question is, how much of a response fulfills my duty?
Judaism tells us that when you take on something, any mitzvah no matter how small, you see it through, and do it beautifully.
You should safeguard the observance of all the commandment(s) that I am commanding you today, so that you will live, multiply, and come to possess the Land that G-d swore to your forefathers.
-- Devarim 8:1
Rashi: The term "all the commandment(s)" is to be taken literally.
[Another interpretation:] According to the Midrash Agadah [the verse is saying]: If you have started a mitzvah, finish it, because only the one who completes it is credited with [the mitzvah]. As the verse states, "And they buried the bones of Yosef, which the Jewish people had brought up from Egypt, in Shechem" (Joshua 24:32). Was it not the case that Moshe alone took care of this [mitzvah of taking the bones, and not the Jewish people]? However, since he did not complete it, it is credited to the Jewish people, who did complete it.
Don’t just start a mitzvah, see it through.
If you were here for the lovely barbeque, you saw the detail with which Alex and his crew not only cooked, but set up tables, and even had a service line with sterno burners. If you’re called to help, you do a great job.
Doing a mitzvah completely, thoroughly—not stopping for another mitzvah, not multitasking. I saw couple a sitting, talking, and one was checkling facebook. If you’re going to be present with your spouse, be totally present, be able to give your full attention. The sources state that if you start a chapter of Talmud, you should finish it—mesayyem—that’s why we have a siyyum. Whenever we do a mitzvah, we should finish it.
Another expression of this is the notion that osek bamitzvah patur min hamitzvah—if I’m busy with one mitzvah, I don’t stop for another. This is why a groom doesn’t have to davven the night of the wedding—he’s busy with the bride. Don’t get torn by even two different things. Don’t move on until you’ve done a really great job at the first thing. Perseverance.
What could perseverance have looked like here? It means just calling the police might not be enough. Asking this neighbor who they were, and asking to talk to them. It means waiting outside until the police come, and making sure they investigate thoroughly, and if they don’t, calling the police station. It means not passing the job off to someone else, not wiping our hands clean and moving on.
What are the mitzvah opportunities in our own life, and how can we do them really well? If someone is sick, not just visiting them once, but visiting them weekly or daily, bringing them meals, not losing steam. If someone is homebound, as a number of our congregants are, it means visiting them, cheering them up, not losing momentum. If someone needs a job, helping them with their resume, their outfit, maybe a mock interview.
Mishna (Kiddushin 39b) teaches us that “whoever performs one mitzvah is well rewarded and his days are prolonged and he inherits the world.” The Jerusalem Talmud, in commenting on this mishna, reads this notion of one mitzvah differently. It argues that "ONE Mitzva" refers to one that a person dedicates him/herself to with particular diligence. The Jerusalem Talmud mentions "Talmud Torah, Bikur Holim, Gemilut Hasadim and other mitzvot that require a high level of perseverance." The Jerusalem Talmud means to say that if one performs one mitzva b’emunah, with real devotion, he’s worthy of having the Divine spirit rest upon him/her. (David Ebstein)
Let us all find our signature mitzvah; maybe something we're good at, or maybe just something where we are needed, and do it well, see it through, bring that one beautiful act, that one diamond of a mitzvah, into the world.
We were all shocked by what happened in Cleveland, a monster imprisoning and torturing four women, mindbogglingly evil acts.
Rescue after 10 years of enslavement was amazing:
A neighbor, Charles Ramsey was inside his house eating a McDonald’s meal when he heard a woman across the street began kicking at the door and screaming. He goes to the porch, hears her screaming “help, let me out.” Ramsey opened the door helped kick in the aluminum screen door through which Berry and her daughter escaped
“I’ve been there a year, she’s been right there next to me a year.”—this was the first time he had any inkling of anything off-kilter with his neighbor. He said he never had a clue anything was wrong. When he heard the screaming, he said, there is no feeling, you just do what you need to do.
It is an amazing story of heroism.
But there were also missed opportunities
Neighbors had called police over the years about weird things they saw:
three naked young girls crawling on all fours with dog leashes around their necks while three men (likely Castro's brothers) watched,
troubling pounds and screams,
a little girl looking out of an attic window.
3 years ago: neighbors heard a blood curdling shriek from the basement. The neighbors called the police. Nothing happened.
Last year a little girl saw a naked woman crawling out of castro’s house
And Castro was fired from his job as a school bus driver, after abducting a child for a joy ride in the school bus, which might have made police all the more concerned about reports about unusual activity at his house.
The neighbors say cops rarely followed up — once, they briefly knocked on Castro's door but left when he didn't show. The cops say they were never called. Or maybe they chalked it up to domestic disturbance, a couple quarrelling, and didn’t want to get involved.
It’s easy to blame the police for these missed opportunities. This is their job. But really it’s all of our jobs too. But could the neighbors have done more? Could they have been more tenacious?
The Torah says, “do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor, and most of us clearly seeing someone in distress will act to do something about it. Rashi: if we truly love our neighbor as ourself, we will never speak negatively about them, or seek to harm them, or desire for anything but the best for them. Certainly anybody would have called the police.
What if Ramsey had just called the police? Maybe they would have come on time. Or maybe they would have come a little too late, Interviewed Castroi, and found nothing amiss.
What made Ramsey’s response different was that he didn’t just call the police. He went up to the door, and seeing a hand sticking out, battered in the door.
Too often, when we are called to help, we do a half baked job. We offer to help someone, and it doesn’t happen, there’s no follow through. The neighbors tried to help over the ten years, they called the police, and went on with their day. Obviously, nobody wants to be a vigilante, but the question is, how much of a response fulfills my duty?
Judaism tells us that when you take on something, any mitzvah no matter how small, you see it through, and do it beautifully.
You should safeguard the observance of all the commandment(s) that I am commanding you today, so that you will live, multiply, and come to possess the Land that G-d swore to your forefathers.
-- Devarim 8:1
Rashi: The term "all the commandment(s)" is to be taken literally.
[Another interpretation:] According to the Midrash Agadah [the verse is saying]: If you have started a mitzvah, finish it, because only the one who completes it is credited with [the mitzvah]. As the verse states, "And they buried the bones of Yosef, which the Jewish people had brought up from Egypt, in Shechem" (Joshua 24:32). Was it not the case that Moshe alone took care of this [mitzvah of taking the bones, and not the Jewish people]? However, since he did not complete it, it is credited to the Jewish people, who did complete it.
Don’t just start a mitzvah, see it through.
If you were here for the lovely barbeque, you saw the detail with which Alex and his crew not only cooked, but set up tables, and even had a service line with sterno burners. If you’re called to help, you do a great job.
Doing a mitzvah completely, thoroughly—not stopping for another mitzvah, not multitasking. I saw couple a sitting, talking, and one was checkling facebook. If you’re going to be present with your spouse, be totally present, be able to give your full attention. The sources state that if you start a chapter of Talmud, you should finish it—mesayyem—that’s why we have a siyyum. Whenever we do a mitzvah, we should finish it.
Another expression of this is the notion that osek bamitzvah patur min hamitzvah—if I’m busy with one mitzvah, I don’t stop for another. This is why a groom doesn’t have to davven the night of the wedding—he’s busy with the bride. Don’t get torn by even two different things. Don’t move on until you’ve done a really great job at the first thing. Perseverance.
What could perseverance have looked like here? It means just calling the police might not be enough. Asking this neighbor who they were, and asking to talk to them. It means waiting outside until the police come, and making sure they investigate thoroughly, and if they don’t, calling the police station. It means not passing the job off to someone else, not wiping our hands clean and moving on.
What are the mitzvah opportunities in our own life, and how can we do them really well? If someone is sick, not just visiting them once, but visiting them weekly or daily, bringing them meals, not losing steam. If someone is homebound, as a number of our congregants are, it means visiting them, cheering them up, not losing momentum. If someone needs a job, helping them with their resume, their outfit, maybe a mock interview.
Mishna (Kiddushin 39b) teaches us that “whoever performs one mitzvah is well rewarded and his days are prolonged and he inherits the world.” The Jerusalem Talmud, in commenting on this mishna, reads this notion of one mitzvah differently. It argues that "ONE Mitzva" refers to one that a person dedicates him/herself to with particular diligence. The Jerusalem Talmud mentions "Talmud Torah, Bikur Holim, Gemilut Hasadim and other mitzvot that require a high level of perseverance." The Jerusalem Talmud means to say that if one performs one mitzva b’emunah, with real devotion, he’s worthy of having the Divine spirit rest upon him/her. (David Ebstein)
Let us all find our signature mitzvah; maybe something we're good at, or maybe just something where we are needed, and do it well, see it through, bring that one beautiful act, that one diamond of a mitzvah, into the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)